Director of Games
|
Welcome to 3rd and final round of the Advanced Player's Guide playtest. As with the first two rounds, we are going to be reviewing two of the six classes set to appear in the Advanced Player's Guide: the Alchemist and the Inquisitor. This messageboard is for posting specific feedback and playtest observations concerning these classes. All other feedback should go on the appropriate board.
Like the playtest of the core rules, I am looking for feedback concerning the mechanics and flavor of these classes. Since these are brand new classes, however, actual playtest feedback is of the utmost importance. Raw speculation and musings are useful, but playtesting is the most valuable feedback we can get at this stage. In particular, I am looking for feedback on how each of these classes work at various levels. Were any of the powers or special abilities too good or not good enough? Are the powers and abilities clear in their presentation and language? Do they function they way they are intended and if not, what are the ramifications? How do these classes work as NPCs or villains?
Make sure to post the level at which you are using the class and any relevant details about the game in which they made an appearance. Make sure to note the foes that they faced and the results of the combat.
Note that this is the final round of the playtest of the Advanced Player's Guide classes. The playtest window will remain open until the end of January. I am hoping to post up some revisions to the classes in early to mid January, time permitting.
The first two rounds of the playtest has provided some great feedback and I look forward to seeing the results in this round. Thank you for all of your assistance making these classes the best they can be.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Got it! Now, to read the thing...
Ohmygosh new feats!
|
Ooh, looks VERY nice at first glance! And needless to say, Wayne's art looks (once again) really fabulous! :)
Jason, I'm going to pit the PCs of my campaign against two witches and a sea hag plus their cavalier "minion" this weekend, and I'll try to post the results next week. ATM I'm a bit worried about certain hexes provoking AoOs since we have FOUR "melee specialists", and I'd like to see some of them changed to ranged touch or changed to not provoking (now it's just too penalizing for the witch to use these hexes). So I'm likely sticking mostly to spells.
I'll also try to wrangle an Inquisitor and an Alchemist into the next session (in two weeks or so).
Keep up the marvelous work!
EDIT: Really, REALLY love how the new classes work... extracts and mutagens actually remind me a lot of the Witcher novels (I don't know if they've influenced the class or not), and I could see Geralt being statted as a high-level Fighter/Alchemist. :)
Inquisitor looks awesome at first glance (both the class and the art -- yowza, that's one hot half-orc). I'm not so thrilled with the Alchemist, but alchemists have never been my cup o' tea anyway.
First Thoughts.
Alchemist seems... meh. And I was looking forward to this class. It seems very 'Me Me Me' oriented, very little teamwork. He might make a good NPC class or possibly BBEG Henchman, but that's about it, as my first thought on the class. Not saying I'll continue to feel that way, but, it seems like he's very much a non-team oriented player. He also seems overly complicated yet also clunky at the same time (mostly because of balance issues I'm sure, that is, balancing it out leaves some clunky fluff/crunch disconnects), but that could just be me trying to take a lot in all at once.
Inquisitor... wow. I do like this class. And this was the class I felt the least liking for on the preview comments from Jason. I really like it, and I'm glad we got a female half-orc for the iconic. Honestly, I think the inquisitor would work fine as a non-LG paladin type. She's got everything she needs to be a big nasty damage dealer, but also works well with a team, unlike the alchemist. Great job, and very unique compared to the other core classes.
Again, my first 2cp worth. Not sure if I can playtest either, although I'll give it a try, probably the inquisitor. I'll leave the alchemist to someone that likes him as my playtest would be biased by not liking him.
Wow!, again!
The Alchemist is just awesome. It's everything I could have hoped for and more, although I'd have preferred the infusion discovery to be a base part of the class. Nevertheless, I'm excited to try it out.
Let the tearing asunder begin, the time of a million threads is upon us. Hopes and dreams will be crushed and rules will be clarified. Things will be speculated to death, and occasionally, something will be played.
|
|
Jason, how do the Tactical Feats relate to the fighter (and the rest of the core classes), i.e. will you be able to pick them as your fighter bonus feats (they *do* include the 'combat' keyword)?
BTW, the feats look great, and I'm glad you guys have apparently adapted and modified feats from certain 3E supplements! =)
I'm actually just as excited about APG as I was a year ago (and still am!) about the core rules -- I didn't expect it, because I was usually (90% of the time) VERY disappointed in the content and quality of the 3E supplements. Bravo! Looks like you guys have not lost ANY "steam" -- on the contrary, you're actually accelerating, and I'm delighted to see where the "Pathfinder Train" will end up! (I hope that expression makes some sense in English)
|
The new classes look great, look forward to testing them. Quick question from the Inquisitor section:
Justice: The judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek
justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls.
This bonus increases by +1 each round after the first, to
a maximum of +3 on the third and following rounds. At
10th level, the bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made
to confirm critical hits.
I assume that means attack rolls and not critical confirmation?
The new classes look great, look forward to testing them. Quick question from the Inquisitor section:
Justice: The judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek
justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls.
This bonus increases by +1 each round after the first, to
a maximum of +3 on the third and following rounds. At
10th level, the bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made
to confirm critical hits.I assume that means attack rolls and not critical confirmation?
No, I think it works as designed as written. I don't think adding a +6 to-hit is game balancing, even at 10th level. However, adding +6 to confirm a critical is not game breaking.
So basically, at 10th level, you'd get :
Round 1 : +1 Attack, +2 Confirm Criticals
Round 2 : +2 Attack, +4 confirm Criticals
Round 3+: +3 Attack, +6 Confirm Criticals
|
Director of Games
|
Jason, how do the Tactical Feats relate to the fighter (and the rest of the core classes), i.e. will you be able to pick them as your fighter bonus feats (they *do* include the 'combat' keyword)?
Since some of them are combat feats, they can be selected by fighters as a bonus feat.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Director of Games
|
No, I think it works as designed as written. I don't think adding a +6 to-hit is game balancing, even at 10th level. However, adding +6 to confirm a critical is not game breaking.
So basically, at 10th level, you'd get :
Round 1 : +1 Attack, +2 Confirm Criticals
Round 2 : +2 Attack, +4 confirm Criticals
Round 3+: +3 Attack, +6 Confirm Criticals
This is correct.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can
change this judgment to another type, but doing so resets the bonus granted to those granted on the first round
It is unclear whether changing the Judgement costs another use of the Judgement ability or if just resets the counter. I think the latter was intended.
|
|
No, I think it works as designed as written. I don't think adding a +6 to-hit is game balancing, even at 10th level. However, adding +6 to confirm a critical is not game breaking.So basically, at 10th level, you'd get :
Round 1 : +1 Attack, +2 Confirm Criticals
Round 2 : +2 Attack, +4 confirm Criticals
Round 3+: +3 Attack, +6 Confirm Criticals
Or would you get:
Round 1: +1 Attack
Round 2: +2 Attack
Round 3: +3 Attack
and then at 10th level you'd get:
Round 1: +2 to confirm
Round 2: +4 to confirm
Round 3: +6 to confirm
instead.
|
Just took a first glance and I'm already loving the Alchemist!
I think this would make a seriously awesome villian/#2 for the BBEG - Especially if he/she's a kobold. They seem to have been written for the role of mad alchemist! :)
Well the role was written into AP 15, complete with lab henchman whipping random bottles of goo. To bad this class wasn't there yet.
Or would you get:Round 1: +1 Attack
Round 2: +2 Attack
Round 3: +3 Attackand then at 10th level you'd get:
Round 1: +2 to confirm
Round 2: +4 to confirm
Round 3: +6 to confirminstead.
See Jason's post above. I finally got a 'This is correct' from Jason. ;)
|
Director of Games
|
It is unclear whether changing the Judgement costs another use of the Judgement ability or if just resets the counter. I think the latter was intended.
When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can
change this judgment to another type, but doing so resets the bonus granted to those granted on the first round
The latter is correct...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just took a first glance and I'm already loving the Alchemist!
I think this would make a seriously awesome villian/#2 for the BBEG - Especially if he/she's a kobold. They seem to have been written for the role of mad alchemist! :)
Yep,
My original post was a 'Would I want to play this class', which is no. As a GM however, I can see them as great BBEG #2's and Henchmen. What I might do to playtest is use an Inquisitor BBEG with an Alchemist Cohort, and some grunt followers.|
|
Jason, how do the Tactical Feats relate to the fighter (and the rest of the core classes), i.e. will you be able to pick them as your fighter bonus feats (they *do* include the 'combat' keyword)?Since some of them are combat feats, they can be selected by fighters as a bonus feat.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks, Jason! I know a dwarven fighter in my group who's going to be thrilled to hear this! :)
|
|
See Jason's post above. I finally got a 'This is correct' from Jason. ;)
Or would you get:Round 1: +1 Attack
Round 2: +2 Attack
Round 3: +3 Attackand then at 10th level you'd get:
Round 1: +2 to confirm
Round 2: +4 to confirm
Round 3: +6 to confirminstead.
Ninja'd. That's pretty good considering their level 14 ability. I'm having trouble picturing something that a well prepared Inquisitor can't kill...which I guess is probably the point.
|
|
Ninja'd. That's pretty good considering their level 14 ability. I'm having trouble picturing something that a well prepared Inquisitor can't kill...which I guess is probably the point.See Jason's post above. I finally got a 'This is correct' from Jason. ;)
Or would you get:Round 1: +1 Attack
Round 2: +2 Attack
Round 3: +3 Attackand then at 10th level you'd get:
Round 1: +2 to confirm
Round 2: +4 to confirm
Round 3: +6 to confirminstead.
Even if they aren't well prepared... they get to choose the best judgement for the moment and swap out a tactical feat if something else seems better.
|
|
Just took a first glance and I'm already loving the Alchemist!
I think this would make a seriously awesome villian/#2 for the BBEG - Especially if he/she's a kobold. They seem to have been written for the role of mad alchemist! :)
Yep,
My original post was a 'Would I want to play this class', which is no. As a GM however, I can see them as great BBEG #2's and Henchmen. What I might do to playtest is use an Inquisitor BBEG with an Alchemist Cohort, and some grunt followers.
Really? I could see myself playing either of them... and both make for great villains, too!
I'm going to use Cavalier with some grunt followers on the next session... I'm just worried that it looks like certain orders have overlapping benefits with the class features (i.e. morale bonuses on saves). I wonder if at least 'Order of the Star' cavaliers should receive Sacred or Insight bonuses? Well, I'll see how it plays out, but I'm fairly sure that the NPC Cavalier I created will feel weaker than an equal-level fighter (I may have to give him way more "followers" than I originally intended).
I love the looks of the alchemist, but I have one quick thought. Brew Potion seems like a feat that he should get at some point, and it is unclear to me whether or not he would meet the prerequisites to take it as one of his regular feats.
I love the looks of the alchemist, but I have one quick thought. Brew Potion seems like a feat that he should get at some point, and it is unclear to me whether or not he would meet the prerequisites to take it as one of his regular feats.
Brew Potion would be slightly redundant since all his extracts are technically 'potions'.
Somehow I didn't see the whole bomb ability coming though, I have to admit it's absoloutely awesome. The thought of madly throwing explosives into the enemy just warms my heart... and theirs...
Somehow I didn't see the whole bomb ability coming though, I have to admit it's absoloutely awesome. The thought of madly throwing explosives into the enemy just warms my heart... and theirs...
For some reason all I see it Monk / Alchemist and I don't know why...
Will need to thoroughly read Alchemist to fully understand the class.
Skimmed through Inquisitor and really like it. :D
Was thinking alchemist would be cool, and it is but... I actually like the inquisitor more which is a bit of a surprise. Inquisitor might be my favorite of the new classes.
|
The Alchemist is EVERYTHING I was hoping for! It's definitely better than the Master Alchmist PrC + Grenadier feat + Mad Alchemist tactical feat build I was saving for my next PC.
I like that you can choose between being a Jekyll/Hyde alchemist or the Mad Bomber what Bombs at Midnight in your choice of discoveries
--Jingle Bell Vrock!
The Alchemist is a dream come true for me. I have a repressed "mad bomber" side to my personality that comes out in game sessions. The last time i played to it i made a Gnome soulknife/pyrokineticst that trained the craft(alch) skill. He like to make Alchimist fires to use in combat.
When making those i dearly wanted a stronger version, and the Alchemists bomb skill is excatly that. Now i can go blow stuff up to my hearts content.
(as an example of the mad bomber personality, that gnome charecter like to sit in bars and drink his alchemist fires, using his fire resistance to avoid damamge. of course his belches tended to incinerate the barstools. I paid for a lot of furniture in that campaign...)
Jason is the Cha drain permanent? To me the wording makes it sound like it wears off when the mutagen does.
If it is permanent, I suggest the alchemist at least get a saving throw to negate the drain. Maybe add +1 to the DC for each mutagen drank since the last failed save. This would keep the element of danger to it and still make the players weigh their use of mutagen carefully.
EDIT- Nevermind I see this is damage, not drain now. Which means it's subject to all the restore rules of ability dmg. Although a saving throw could still be nice.
|
|
First Thoughts.
Alchemist seems... meh. And I was looking forward to this class. It seems very 'Me Me Me' oriented, very little teamwork. He might make a good NPC class or possibly BBEG Henchman, but that's about it, as my first thought on the class. Not saying I'll continue to feel that way, but, it seems like he's very much a non-team oriented player. He also seems overly complicated yet also clunky at the same time (mostly because of balance issues I'm sure, that is, balancing it out leaves some clunky fluff/crunch disconnects), but that could just be me trying to take a lot in all at once.
MDT - the build is exactly how it was described at the sneak peek session held at GenCon Indy this year. The class is built to use his/her alchemy as a personal effect. The character can perform these actions then help out the party. Every character class has an ability used as a personal effect; a monk's flurry, a paladin's smite, a ranger's favored enemy, etc. Take another look. You'll see it's a very colorful, fun roleplaying potential class.
Just read through the classes and i like what i see. there is one thing that fell a bit short for me.
the mutagens, i just feel they're a little bland to me. when i first saw mutagens listed i had to physically stop myself from skipping ahead to see the different things that could be done with this ability. then when i got there i was a little disappointed with what i read. i get the concept and what it's trying to do, i just felt it could have been different.
i would've loved to see a list of different traits that could be mimicked by this ability. it's hard for me to articulate what it is i'm trying to get at.
i still really like the concept of the class and look forward to using ig in game.
i guess i just needed to voice my opinion or it would bug me until the end of time.
Some first impressions and notes
Alchemist
- The alchemist, while not my cup of tea, is pretty groovy thematically. A grenadier dabbler is quite unique and I can see some gnome-lovers er... players really enjoying it.
- Both classes are rather complex (yes, I know - _Advanced_ Player's Guide), but they take a good grokking to get your head around.
- It is hard to tell whether extracts, mutagens, and bombs are subsets of the Alchemy class feature based on the current layout. What exists is an Alchemy class feature that defines extracts and distracts you with mention of other class features.
- An 8-level gap between the mutagen and Greater Mutagen seems a touch steep - particularly when Grand comes 4 levels later - curve should be smoothed some?
- Love the grand discoveries - all very nicely thematic. Seeding mini-versions of these at the lower discovery levels would add nice flavour.
Inquisitor
- As a hybrid lover in general in RPGs I dig the inquisitor and his options. It is, however, pretty close to a ranger with the bow proficiencies and a bent toward dex/wis stacking.
- Inquisitor domain powers need to be clarified that they come from the existing cleric domain power lists(?). I kept looking at the judgments and wondering how they're related (still a little unsure)
- I find the Inquisitor's Tactical Feats clunky - the mechanism of granting other people feats (that they don't have to qualify for?) to be fiddly. Could this not simply be phrased as you having selected a teamwork or tactical focus partner and then giving yourself bonuses from there? Applying an existing mechanic sets up too many false assumptions for the reader imho.
- Editorial note: Inquisitor's Solo Tactics ability needs to be listed after the Tactical Feat ability or the reader is left scratching his head until he continues.
- Hybrid spell list is very intriguing. Looking forward to seeing how this plays out in the design.
- The ranger thing again. Sorry my head just keeps going back to it. With track and the like, this class takes the parts of ranger that were not overshadowed by Fighter (archery, TWF), and give them to another class. Poor rangers, always getting the sidelines... ;)
|
I've already built a Gnome alchemist for a quick one shot dragonlance game that a friend of mine wants to run tonight, and we're getting ready to run it in the next half hour.
So far I think that both classes are fantastic and are a great wrap up to the APG playtest stuff, the feats were also a great addition and my friends who play fighters are excited to see them in play.
As I said on another thread, I may not have time to playtest these (maybe as NPCs, I'll give it a shot when I can) but I suggest names changes.
One, I prefer the Inquisitor to be called the Avenger. It's more invoking of both the role of the class and in flavor.
And the Tactical Feats need to be titled differently to avoid confusion with 3.5e Tactical feats, I think. They don't really seem "tactical", but more "teamwork". Teamwork Feats has a nice ring to it.
|
|
I love the alchemist and I'm working out builds for an upcoming game. However, there are a few things (that have been pointed out elsewhere) that I'd like to see.
1. Between the spell list and mutagen ability it feels like the class is driving towards a self buffer yet they face the same downfall that all self buffers do. By the time she's done quaffing all her potions to be effective in combat, the fight is over. I'd like to see some ability that would allow her to buff up faster. A discovery that would allow her to combine multiple spell effects into the mutagen would be fitting.
i.e. when she preps the mutagen for the day she also uses the slots for two first level extracts and chooses enlarge person and shield. When the party comes to a big fight she can then quaff the tonic for a +2 str, +2 natural armor, +4 shield bonus and all the bonuses for being large. She only gets one per day, but it's pretty awesome when it goes off.
2. I'd like to see a way to make the alchemical items that are already present in the game actually useful to an alchemist beyond about 3rd level. Some ability that lets the alchemical items crafted by (or possibly just used by) the alchemist function at a higher DC. Tanglefoot bags and Thunder stones would provide all sorts of interesting options if there was a reasonable chance of the bad guys failing their saves.
3. The spell list is somewhat limited when it comes to actually affecting the environment. I'd like to see and alchemist that can either be an effective buffer (see #1) or can do a little more than just damage with his bombs (cure light wounds potions as splash weapons?!). Ideally the discoveries would let her choose but that might be too many rules for an already complicated class.
Great job so far! I've been loving digesting the new classes.
|
So, am I correct in guessing that the Alchemist does not count as an arcane spellcaster, nor a spontaneous caster for the purpose of qualifying for feats and prestigue classes? An alchemist dragon disciple seems to be a pretty natural (or unnatural) extension of mutagenic experiments. Sadly, under the existing rules, it cannot be so. :(
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
As I said on another thread, I may not have time to playtest these (maybe as NPCs, I'll give it a shot when I can) but I suggest names changes.
One, I prefer the Inquisitor to be called the Avenger. It's more invoking of both the role of the class and in flavor.
And the Tactical Feats need to be titled differently to avoid confusion with 3.5e Tactical feats, I think. They don't really seem "tactical", but more "teamwork". Teamwork Feats has a nice ring to it.
I'm not sure changing the name to Avenger is really all that good of an idea.
A. "Avenger" is going to be associated with the 4e class of the same name, and I think that will come off as rather cheesy. Yeah, I know, they don't own (and possibly can't own) the name, but we don't want people to look at this class and think "Oh, that's Paizo's version of that 4e class." We want them to look at the class and say "Ooh, Inquisitor, I wonder what they do?" and crack open the book and find out.
B. What exactly is the Inquisitor "avenging"? The opening text says she roots out evil, which implies she's a sort of strike first before the evil has a chance to act kind of character, rather than someone visiting righteous payback. The class features feel more like those of a monster hunter than a divine punisher. I guess you could make some argument that the Judgement ability is a sort of divine vengeance, but they don't actually target the enemy who may or may not have earned their ire. Instead, they give the Inquisitor bonuses that apply against everyone they go up against. Overall, doesn't feel very avenger-y to me.
|
|
ugh, 2 more classes with d8 HD and Medium Bab.
WHat is with ALL but the Cavalier having this?
The one that does not make sense to have it is the Summoner. I'm not sure with the witch. (never could completely grasp the class, even with reading it.) At least it does make sense with these 2, though I wish teh Inquisitor had the high Bab/ D10
I love the looks of the alchemist, but I have one quick thought. Brew Potion seems like a feat that he should get at some point, and it is unclear to me whether or not he would meet the prerequisites to take it as one of his regular feats.Brew Potion would be slightly redundant since all his extracts are technically 'potions'.
Not quite.
Firstly, Potions are usable by anybody (without Infusion), obviously.But mainly, Extracts/Infusions have a serious time limit. Any Cure Wounds Extracts are directly deducted from the daily Extract, so they are more akin to a Cleric CASTING Cure Wounds rather than Brewing a Cure Potion.
I don't see a problem with them spending GP to create Potions of "spells" they know, abiding by the normal Potion restrictions (re: target, etc) to gain the advantages (permanence, usable by anybody).
Flavor-wise, certain Alchemists could extend their knowledge enough (w/ Brew Potion Feat) to be able to make 'universal' (normal) Potions, though such 'universal' Potions couldn't take advantage of the Alchemist's unique powers as much as Extracts/ Infusions. They already have an ability "Enhance Potion" specifically working with Potions - why shouldn't they be able to make them?
So, am I correct in guessing that the Alchemist does not count as an arcane spellcaster, nor a spontaneous caster for the purpose of qualifying for feats and prestigue classes? An alchemist dragon disciple seems to be a pretty natural (or unnatural) extension of mutagenic experiments. Sadly, under the existing rules, it cannot be so. :(
he does not cast spells so he is not really a spellcaster